1. NLC - The Next Linear Collider Project Tor Raubenheimer Beam Delivery System Risk Issues American Linear Collider Physics Meeting SLAC January 8 th, 2004

2. Introduction Analyze risks to the LC project completion –Considered four categories: Type: beam physics; engineering; production Impact: impact on luminosity or energy reach Time: when the problem would be uncovered Consequence: impact of fixing the problem –Rankings in each category were then multiplied together Risk is evaluated against the design parameters: E & Lum. Risks is based on present evaluation –Many risks will change as R&D progresses Only considered a subset of relevant items – broad scope –A total of ~40 items for each of US warm and US cold are listed

3. Example 1: SLED-II SLED-II Demonstration –Technology: State of the art = 4 –Effect: linear impact on energy = 3 –Time: R&D Stage = 1 –Consequence: Back to R&D = 4 –Total = 48 SLED-II Production –Engineering: Feasible but untested = 3 –Effect: linear impact on energy = 3 –Time: PED Stage = 2 –Consequence: Major rework = 3 –Total = 54 SLED-II Operations – Example (not actually included) –Total = 36

4. Example 2: Active Vibration Suppression Demonstration – Example (not actually included) –Technology: R&D prototypes but extrapolation remains = 3 –Effect: impact on luminosity is quadratic or steeper = 4 –Time: R&D Stage = 1 –Consequence: Back to R&D = 4 –Total = 48 Operations –Engineering: Feasible but untested = 3 –Effect: impact on luminosity is quadratic or steeper = 4 –Time: Pre-ops Stage = 3 –Consequence: Major rework = 2 –Total = 72 Many items identified in BDS were high risk because uncovered late in the project cycle

5. Risk Evaluation High risks are attached to issues that are not understood or have not been demonstrated Risks are high when issues are demonstrated late in the project cycle One problem: all of us understand the warm better than cold –Much of cold design is based on the TESLA TDR but this has lots of known errors (and possibly a few unknown errors) –I think we overcompensated in an attempt to be ‘unbiased’ E+ source target damage E+ source operations impact Ions and e-cloud in DR DR impedance Collimation system efficiency Single tunnel LC design E+ source yield DR dynamic aperture DR tolerances Emittance growth in LET Head-on collision extraction IP feedback

6. BDS Risks Compiled by Mike Harrison and myself Much of the BDS is conventional –Elements which are more novel include the superconducting final focusing magnets, the beam collimators, the vibration suppression systems, and the fast feedback systems –Beam dynamics issues which is novel are related to the short bunches, the higher energy, and the small beam emittances Operation of the BDS depends on the input beams –Emittances are designed to be the same –One significant difference between warm and cold is the incoming beam jitter –Another difference is the pulse structure

7. Table of LC BDS Parameters SLCFFTBUS WarmUS Cold Beam energy [GeV]4647250  x /  y [mm] 3 / 410 / 0.18 / 0.115 / 0.4  x /  y [mm-mrad] 55 / 1030 / 33.6 / 0.049.6 / 0.04 sx / sy [  m] 1.4 / 0.71.8 / 0.0550.248 / 0.00300.554 / 0.0057 N [10 10 ]3.60.70.752.0 Nb111922820 Rep Rate [Hz]120301205 Dy212.821.9 Hd2.21.461.77 Beam power [MW]0.0350.0026.911.3 Solenoid [T]0.603.0 ~ 6.0 Luminosity [cm -2 s -1 ]3e302.1e342.6e34

8. Emittance and Jitter Budgets LET simulation codes benchmarked against each other Schulte and Walker, PAC 2003 and PT get similar results for the linacs –40% growth through the linacs  round up to 50% Some BDS tolerances tighter for cold and some looser Warm BC more complicated but lower  E/E –Estimate for  larger in cold BC than in warm but …

9. LC Environment BPM measurements on PEP-II IR BPMs during abort gap Simulation of beam-beam interaction debris in NLC IR (e- from left) Not quite as clean as people might like!

10. BDS Risks (1) Backgrounds = 81 –Beam physics: Poor or ambiguous data indicates a problem = 3 –Effect: linear impact on luminosity = 3 –Time: Pre-Ops Stage = 3 –Consequence: Major redesign = 3 Why is there a risk? –We can model and design extensively now, but, turn the machine on and &*%^%! –This is the experience of most colliding beam facilities Hard to fully model all parts of the problem –The LC is probably in better shape because we are so concerned –Calculated beam tails are similar in warm and cold designs at 10 -6 of the beam – calculations are incomplete

11. BDS Risks (2) Final Magnet Stabilization = 72 (warm) = 0 (cold) –Engineering/Design: Feasible but untested = 3 –Effect: Quadratic or steeper impact on luminosity = 4 –Time: Pre-Ops Stage = 3 –Consequence: Minor redesign = 2 Why is there a risk? –Natural motion should be less than ~20 nm based on SLD measurements Want to stabilize at the 0.5 nm level Done in other cases but not in the IR environment –Important for operation (FONT may provide some backup) –Possible to develop in the lab and build a full mock-up during the PED phase (there is some risk associated with the lab development) –However, impossible to fully duplicate actual installation

12. Scenario 1: No stabilization, no FONT, quiet detector. Scenario 2: No stabilization, need FONT*, noisy detector. Scenario 3: Stabilization, no FONT, noisy detector.

13. BDS Risks (3) IP Feedback Implementation = 48 (warm) = 72 (cold) –Engineering/Design: R&D prototype =2 (warm) –Engineering/Design: Feasible but untested = 3 (cold) –Effect: Quadratic or steeper impact on luminosity = 4 –Time: Pre-Ops Stage = 3 –Consequence: Minor redesign = 2 Note categories need to be interpreted broadly Why is there a risk? –Absolutely essential for luminosity after a few seconds –Unprecedented requirements – sub-nm accuracy Why is cold harder than warm? –Higher resolution required for the same  L/L –More complex system: multiple interacting feedbacks

14. Beam-Beam Deflection Resolution Required resolution is determined by the outgoing angles –Tolerances are 1.5 ~ 2x tighter in cold LC Warm LCCold LC 95% DL/L1.1 nm24 ur0.65 nm15 ur 90% DL/L1.9 nm30 ur1.2 nm20 ur 80% DL/L3.5 nm58 ur2.6 nm29 ur 50% DL/L11.1 nm166 ur10.5 nm84 ur

15. Outgoing Distribution High disruption makes the outgoing distribution highly nonlinear –May be difficult to determine ‘centroid’ –RF bpms may not work –It ‘appears’ that close to maximal luminosity is attained when the beam-beam deflection centroid is minimized

16. Solenoid and Crossing Angle Strong solenoid with the crossing angle will cause variation of the vertical trajectory with the horizontal position and with the energy loss –These may degrade the effective resolution –Outgoing spectrum has a large fraction of beam particles at less than 50% energy –Low energy particles will get large deflections and may cause backgrounds

17. More Complex Feedback System (1) The higher disruption and the larger incoming beam jitter of the cold LC requires two linked feedback systems –TDR design has angle feedback ~850 meters upstream of IP Both angle and position setting change from pulse-to-pulse –Beam trajectory changes from pulse-to-pulse by ~ sigma –Impact of BDS wakefields has not been considered Trajectory changes will generate varying beam tails TDR design has 5%  N/N  trajectory changes from bunch-to-bunch Figure 7.18 from TRC

18. More Complex Feedback System (2) Changing IP angle through BDS will confuse BDS drift feedbacks –Drifts feedbacks are required to stabilize the trajectory at the BDS sextupoles at the sub-um level –1-sigma angle change corresponds to ~100 um trajectory change Cold LC may need intra-train luminosity feedback as well as position and angle feedback –Require fast luminosity monitor that will not be impacted by changes in backgrounds –Beamstrahlung spectrum, energy loss, and deflections are very sensitive to collision parameters and tails Higher bandwidth not a fundamental limitation but complicates implementation –3 MHz feedback requires significant faster processing  much faster BPMs and kickers

19. Simulation Results Early TDR simulations were incomplete Glen White has performed ‘full’ simulations of TESLA system - still ‘work in progress’ –Results published at PAC03 by Schulte, Walker, White showed an average luminosity of ~ 2.2e34 — result below presented at SLAC –Each case depends on trajectory jitter – see Figure 7.18 from TRC No wakefields and no correlations between backgrounds and trajectory Nominal L = 3.4e34

20. Summary Many other risk issues identified in BDS –Collective effects –Magnet jitter in BDS –Heating of SC IR magnets –Collimator performance and MPS limitations –Aberration tuning procedures –Crab cavity The upper 3.5 items are also issues that can only really be determined late in the project cycle Risks in the BDS are high because, although unlikely, there is significant luminosity impact and little time for remediation Given present knowledge, the risks in warm and cold BDS are very similar